Are 3 dimensions better than 2?

[Klondike Kat]

If you still have issues, I suggest you read what NSIDC has to say about the issue, and why they feel extent is the better measure.  It is not a matter of belief, but scientific evidence.

Out of curiosity: Where does the NSIDC say that extent is a better measure than volume/thickness?

“When the ice melts, the polar regions have less of a reflective surface.  More hear is absorbed, which causes more warming.”

and

“Roughly half of the heat exchange occurs through openings in the ice.”

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/environment/global_climate.html

Also,
“Scientists tend to focus on Arctic sea ice extent more closely than other aspects of sea ice because satellites measure extent more accurately than they do other measurements, such as thickness.”

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html

They don't say it's better, they say it's measured more accurately.

Not in so many words, no.  However, they emphasize the importance of ice cover over other attributes in the total system.

[Jim Hunt]

However, they emphasize the importance of ice cover over other attributes in the total system.

No they don't. At the risk of repeating myself:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/08/getting-beneath-ice

NSIDC reports ice extent, a two-dimensional measure of the Arctic Ocean’s ice cover. But sea ice extent tells only part of the story: sea ice is not all flat like a sheet of paper....

Scientists want to know not just how far the ice extends, but also how deep and thick it is, because thinner ice is more vulnerable to summer melt.

[Pmt111500]

I'll mention the possibility of 2,7 dimensions as a description of dry water ice and 2,5 - 2,9 for wet water ice depending on external temperature and exit this somewhat esoteric thread. Thanks.

[Klondike Kat]

However, they emphasize the importance of ice cover over other attributes in the total system.

No they don't. At the risk of repeating myself:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/08/getting-beneath-ice

NSIDC reports ice extent, a two-dimensional measure of the Arctic Ocean’s ice cover. But sea ice extent tells only part of the story: sea ice is not all flat like a sheet of paper....

Scientists want to know not just how far the ice extends, but also how deep and thick it is, because thinner ice is more vulnerable to summer melt.

Exactly what are you gleaning out of this report to support your claims, besdeds they are trying to measure thickness more accuratey?

[jdallen]

However, they emphasize the importance of ice cover over other attributes in the total system.

No they don't. At the risk of repeating myself:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/08/getting-beneath-ice

NSIDC reports ice extent, a two-dimensional measure of the Arctic Ocean’s ice cover. But sea ice extent tells only part of the story: sea ice is not all flat like a sheet of paper....

Scientists want to know not just how far the ice extends, but also how deep and thick it is, because thinner ice is more vulnerable to summer melt.

Exactly what are you gleaning out of this report to support your claims, besdeds they are trying to measure thickness more accuratey?

... that they consider thickness/volume a key metric for understanding Arctic system behavior....

[Jim Hunt]

Exactly what are you gleaning out of this report

What JD said.

Plus I'm curious why you apparently think one page on the NSIDC web site constitutes "scientific evidence" whereas a couple of other pages do not.

[Klondike Kat]

Exactly what are you gleaning out of this report

What JD said.

Plus I'm curious why you apparently think one page on the NSIDC web site constitutes "scientific evidence" whereas a couple of other pages do not.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, especially since I referenced much of the entire website.  Your link just mentions how scientists are attempting to more accurately measure ice thickness.  Nothing in your link supports your claim that they feel that thickness is a more important attribute than extent.  Could it just be wishful thinking on your part?

[Jim Hunt]

Since I referenced much of the entire website.

I must have blinked and missed that.

Your link just mentions how scientists are attempting to more accurately measure ice thickness.

Plus "sea ice extent tells only part of the story". Did you blink and miss that?

Nothing in your link supports your claim that they feel that thickness is a more important attribute than extent.

Where did I claim that?

Could it just be wishful thinking on your part?

Nope.

[Klondike Kat]

Since I referenced much of the entire website.

I must have blinked and missed that.

Apparently

Your link just mentions how scientists are attempting to more accurately measure ice thickness.

Plus "sea ice extent tells only part of the story".

Obviously.

Nothing in your link supports your claim that they feel that thickness is a more important attribute than extent.

Where did I claim that?

Seems otherwise

Could it just be wishful thinking on your part?

Nope.

Good.  I would hope that you are being objective.

[Tom_Mazanec]

While we're talking about area vs volume, here is some results (using Earth's gravity) of ice mass and sea level rise, which should give us a volume clue:
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-earth-gravity-reveals-climate.html
BTW, the link comes from the Dieoff reddit...so that is who cliffhanger1983 is.

[Neven]

Wrong thread. GRACE doesn't measure Arctic sea ice volume.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Well neven, I thought that if you see that, say, the Antarctic icecap is 500 billion tons lighter gravitational pull, it means 500 billion tons of ice melted, and that means around 500 billion cubic meters (a cubic meter of ice weighs about a ton, right?) less ice volume.
I am trying not to start new threads, so I thought I should post it here.

[Neven]

The discussion here is related to Arctic sea ice, not to Antarctic land ice. GRACE has been and still is mentioned in many threads, such as the Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE thread.

[5to10]

The discussion here is related to Arctic sea ice, not to Antarctic land ice. GRACE has been and still is mentioned in many threads, such as the Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE thread.

That account is disinfo or just a straight up troll. They are well aware of what they're doing here and well aware this is the wrong thread for what they are posting.

[be cause]

thanks 5to10 .. I was hoping Neven would have recognized the signs .. b.c.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Sorry...as I said, I thought this was the best place for it.

[magnamentis]

Sorry...as I said, I thought this was the best place for it.

And there it is, within five minutes of me mentioning it on the other thread. The song and dance routine.

What, I ain't doin' nothin' ..."

we are gaining momentum, just a matter of time, ignore list helps to suffer less for the moment

[Rod]

The trolls are getting strong on this forum.  There is another one that has been active lately that I think is Daniel B. 

I'm not going to name and shame because I can't prove it, but it makes it hard to follow the science threads when sophisticated trolls are trying to disrupt the conversation. 

[b_lumenkraft]

I'm not going to name and shame

Hello? But that's what you just did, Rob.

I don't think Tom is a troll. They are having difficulties finding out how this forum ticks.

My advice for Tom would have been to lurk here for a while before posting, but there is no law that demands that.

And for how i see it, the disruption is mainly caused by people responding to Tom, not by Toms posts.

[Pmt111500]

Whataboutism-filter would be grate but I don't think it's possible to construct one as of yet

[Neven]

I had hoped this thread would slowly disappear. I'm going to give the process a nudge by locking it. If anyone wants to see it re-opened for a continuation of this fascinating discussion  , write me a PM.